Let's Make a Deal

Posted Friday, October 30, 2009, at 2:49 AM

In the middle of great political debates, there are always calls for the left and right to work together. I remember from my public school days, I was taught that compromise was a big part of America's founders being able to hammer out an agreement to form a government.

Let's pretend that you leftists, and I, really have the power to negotiate. For this discussion, let's say that we have the power to make a deal. Let's see if we can.

Health Care:

I will agree to allow liberal government to take over the American health care industry. You liberals can give health care coverage to every single person that draws a breath in America. You can crush the insurance companies under your feet. You can restrict what doctors can earn and go ahead, feel free to demonize doctors and accuse them of doing phony surgeries on kids for money. Go ahead and tax small business right into oblivion to pay for sex changes and mental health therapy and boob jobs. Unleash Trial Lawyers to run rough-shod over medical care providers, just do it!

What do I want for agreeing to this? End abortion. That's right, stop killing babies. Make abortion legal only for the life of mom, or rape or incest, since those 400 out of 1.5 million abortions each year are what you liberals always point too. I don't agree that babies should be executed because their fathers are criminals, but to save three thousand lives every single day, I guess I'll have to compromise.

Under the new health care reality, I know that I'll be asked to die early, for the betterment of mankind and all. When I reach seventy, and told that I am not worth the treatment I need, hey folks, I'll go quietly. I'll gladly die early to save those babies. Jesus said, "greater love hath no man, than to lay down his life for another."

Well, do we have a deal? This should be an easy deal for you liberals, you not only get to takeover a huge part of the American economy, but you'll actually save lives.

You folks on the right may worry that the health care takeover will severely damage the Republic. I agree that it will, but, if we could truly show respect for life, and save 50 million babies in the next forty years instead of murdering them, I think God would honor our respect for life, and Bless us in spite of our stupidity.

You've never had God Bless you when you're a dummy?

When our government, and our citizens have so little respect for life, we'll not succeed regardless how brilliant we think we are.

Energy and the environment:

I will agree to let you on the left go nuts with all your green energy. Build those windmills, slap a solar panel on every house in America. I'll agree to wear a coat in my house in the winter, and sweat like crazy in my home in the Summer. I'll drive your union produced golf-carts, and only use one square of toliet paper when I wipe my backside. I'll hug a tree each and every day. You can show Al Gore's movie to every school kid in America, and hell, you can even call it Science if you want. I'll watch a tiny little television, ride on public transit and let the homeless barf on me, I'll do it all baby.

What do I want? For the above, I want you liberals to get off the backs of the oil companies. Let them drill for American oil. Quit taxing the oil companies silly, and cut back regulations. Build nuclear energy plants now, and use our coal reserves.

This should appeal to both sides, because it will only take a short while before we see which side can deliver the energy.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I'm game. How about you, Mike? GI? Fair trade?

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 7:22 AM

Conservatives have not lost in any battle where true conservatism is on display. Geo. W. was no conservative. He was an okay moderate. I agree with you Sam, babies should not be killed simply because of the sins of their fathers. American women have killed fifty million babies? Did I read that right? That is a staggering indictment of women and their poor judgement. It is hard to understand liberals. So concerned are they for civilians killed in Iraq, don't want to offend gays, can not call terrorists - "terrorists", yet, for any reason, have that baby safe in mommas womb, ripped to shreds. All these so-called great minds go along with it. It's sick. I agree with Sam, I'd go along with your health takeover disaster to save all those innocent lives.

-- Posted by CandyKilroy on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 10:25 AM

As the (adoptive) father of a daughter conceived by rape, I have trouble accepting the logic of agreeing to abortion even in the case of rape or incest. As a conservative Christian, however, I'd even trade off capital punishment to end abortion. (Which admittedly has nothing to do with the health care debate.)

-- Posted by croswind on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 11:59 AM

GI...really! NEED for abortion??? Except for a tiny fraction of pregnancies, no NEED exists. The only time an abortion would be NEEDED is with tubal pregnancies, or one of the other extremely rare cases that would cause the death of the mother. In 99.5% of all abortions, the cause of fetal death is Mom's WISHES. She does not WISH to be pregnant, and the law allows her that WISH fulfillment.

No compromise with drilling our own oil, either? Tsk, tsk...aren't you one of those that can't figure out why we can't get along? Kind of looks like the fault of the close-minded, uncompromising, short-sighted, unscientific, "gimmme-more" left! I can't wait until YOUR annual energy expenses triple or quadruple along with everyone else's. :-)

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 1:57 PM

I have read the testimonies of several women who had (for lack of a better word)"rape babies". I can not even begin to understand what a woman would be going through to become pregnant because of rape. However, I think we grossly underestimate women to automatically assume that they would want to kill an innocent life, that is part of them, for no other reason that the sperm donor was a total creep.

In a real compromise, both sides are suppose get something they really want, and give in on something they really do not want to give in on.

Mrs. Smith, the left has this delusion that if we'd only spend billions of bucks on windmills and solar, then windmills and solar can be made to work on a large scale. We conservatives know the truth. If it were not for the massive sums of taxpayer bucks subsidizing green energy, it would fall flat, and we'd be headed in the right direction on energy.

The oil companies are assets to the world, not demons. The left wants to get the weak thinkers emotionally involved to hate these critical assets. Now, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, when it comes to oil companies or anybody else, trust everyone, but cut the cards.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 2:28 PM

Crowind - Thanks brother for being there for that child. One lady I talked to actually said that because her daughter, (a child of rape) had been so special to her, and gave her wonderful grandchildren, etc., years later she was able to actually say that the rape had been a blessing. Please my liberals friends, I do not beleive that rape is a blessing under any circumstances. This woman was talking about how she achieved forgiveness and healing. She merely explained how she had taken something evil, and with God's help, yes help, she was able to turn the evil to good.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 2:51 PM

Carl, Thanks for stating that oil was a part of building this country, and I am glad that you'll agree on nuclear energy. If indeed the oil industry is the "buggy whip" of our time, then we should use the energy and oil companies to solve energy problems. Not ONLY them, but working with them as an ally. Our government treats this asset as an enemy of America.

I have supported, and would support President Obama if he came out with an energy initiative, in the mold of JFK and the race to the moon. An energy program that would strive to solve energy problems, safely, without catering to the extreme elements in the environmental movement. Extreme meaning those who consider humans as an enemy of the Planet, particularly American humans.

I want clear air and water, however it is hard to get conservatives on board when all we hear is millions for Nancy Pelosi's mouse.

I appreciate your time in reading and commenting.

Oh, and Carl, if you'd like to provide a resource that says we are running out of fossil fuel, I'd be glad to read it. I have heard there are yet vast untapped supplies. I'll dig up some of my sources, and will be glad to share with you.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, at 4:24 PM

I agree to debate and not name call. Seems like the thing to do. LOL I am on the road this weekend. I will get to this quickly though.

until later

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Oct 31, 2009, at 3:12 AM

Hang in there Carl... I'm sure Sam will get back to you. Should make for an interesting debate.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 8:34 AM

This is the type of dialogue that I have been hoping to see on this site for a long time! Thank you....thank you...thank you!!

-- Posted by Kurt on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:40 AM

Carl, you are absolutely right on as far as the energy debate goes. (in my opinion).

We need to heavily subsidize and expedite the exploration of green energy, for a variety of reasons.

1) As you said, oil IS a finite resource. There is a debate to be had about how much is left. Maybe it will run out in our children's lifetime. Maybe not. But it will undeniably run out some day in the future. It took millions of years for our environment to naturally create the oil we are using. And we are undeniably using it faster than it is being created, and there will come a day when there is no more. Under no circumstances should we be in any way reliant on oil when that day comes. Green energy technology has the potential to deliver us a practically unlimited source of energy.

2) Foreign policy. Firstly, the ability to be self-reliant for energy would be a huge benefit both economically and for foreign policy. But more importantly, we need to be able to position ourselves as an energy supplier for OTHER countries. Countries like China and India are industrializing at astounding rates. Soon after them, the South American countries will likely follow. And maybe someday, the African countries will follow.

All of these industrializing countries will share a common need, energy. The country best positioned to supply it to them will have extraordinary influence in the world. Currently, those countries best positioned to do so are in the Middle East. And while drilling here in the US could potentially make us energy independent (which I don't actually think is likely), it would certainly not position us to supply these burgeoning countries with oil. We simply don't have enough for everyone else.

The governments of these countries are not stupid. They want to build their infrastructure using modern technology. Technology that will stand the test of time. (for instance, Honduras, the poorest country in the hemisphere has fantastic 3G cellular reception across almost the ENTIRE country. Because why build an infrastructure with outdated technology).

Given an affordable choice between creating an oil-based infrastructure, and a "green" infrastructure. I have little doubt that they will choose the more "forward-thinking" technology. The question is, which country (if any) will be able to provide it to them?

3) The environment. Yes, the environment. Call me a crazy liberal whacko, but I'm worried about the damage we're potentially doing to our planet. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm really not qualified to interpret the reams of data and piles of evidence that supports climate change (try as I might).

But, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is has rejected the general findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which contended that global warming was occurring and that humans are to blame (at least in part).

Several institutes have released various non-committal statements about global warming. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists initially dissented, but retracted their dissent in 2007. And the majority of scientific institutes have concurred with the findings. So now, it's only individual scientists who dissent.

Is it possible that the majority of scientists, and most of the scientific institutes are wrong? Of course. But I wouldn't bet that way. I wouldn't put money on against them. And by not listening to them, we are gambling with something far more important than money, the future of our planet.

-- Posted by jhat on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM

Here I was, innocently reading Sam's blog post and its responses, when to my surprise I see my username. It seems I was asked (told) not to enter the debate. Well, I'm here, so lets debate.

Let's face it, for electrical generation, nuclear and coal is where its at. Both produce more heat per input unit, than any other source. They may not be politically popular, but they win every time. I have no problem using my tax moneys to subsidize " green energy". If a state or local public power district wants to build a wind farm, or drill a hole in the ground for geothermal, or build a solar field, let them, if it lowers my electricity bill.

Unfortunately, the "green" fails when asked to stand alone. Wind generators wear out before they pay for themselves, solar is so susceptible to weather, geothermal is still in its infancy. In fact, despite being around for 50 years, all are still in their infancy. So far, "green" only works when used as a supplement to coal and nuclear, a very small supplement.

As for petroleum, nothing has proved to provide, if you'll pardon the pun, the biggest bang, for the buck. Ethanol hasn't. Propane hasn't.

Is petroleum a finite resource? Did decomposition suddenly stop. No, petroleum is constantly being produced naturally. Right wallismarsh.

As for "global warming", for every scientist that says it exists, the is one credible scientist that says it doesn't.

As form me and name calling, Carl, I do believe it was you that resorted to childish name calling and mindless gibberish as you lost the arguement. There you have it, Carl, let the debate begin.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 3:47 PM

You're right, oil is being formed today. However, not in the amount that meets our needs for consumption. If it is, we're not finding it.

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 4:27 PM

CPB,

I'll agree with you on nuclear. I like nuclear power, and I think we need more of it. However, I'm not quite ready for us to dive head-first into nuclear power. Primarily because we are on the cusp of better nuclear technology. Power from nuclear fusion holds the promise of more energy, drastically less nuclear waste, less radioactivity, and less chance of a "meltdown".

I would hate for us to build a bunch of shiny new nuclear reactors (that need to operate for 40 years) right before viable nuclear fusion reactors become available.

And I'll also agree with you on green energy. It doesn't provide a large enough yield. Yet. But the energy POTENTIAL is there. And we come closer to realizing that potential every day. That's why we need to invest in it. That's why we need to subsidize it. Because if we don't, someone else will, and we'll be left in the dust. And instead of getting all our energy from the oil-producing countries, we'll be getting it from the green-energy countries.

And as far as global warming, I'll have to disagree. And I'd ask you to support the statement that "for every scientist that says it exists, the is one credible scientist that says it doesn't."

Because here is a list of national/international organizations that support the general idea of human-caused global warming:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society

World Meteorological Organization

American Quaternary Association

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Society for Microbiology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters

The Wildlife Society

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Preventative Medicine

American Medical Association

American Public Health Association

Australian Medical Association

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia

International Association for Great Lakes Research

ANNNNNNNNNNND...

The national science academies of:

Austria

Belgium

Brazil

Cameroon

Canada

The Caribbean

China

France

Ghana

Germany

Indonesia

Ireland

Italy

India

Japan

Kenya

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mexico

Nigeria

New Zealand

Russia

Senegal

South Africa

Sudan

Sweden

Tanzania

Uganda

United Kingdom

United States

Zambia

Zimbabwe

These were taken from wikipedia, which has citations of each organization's support. (and of course, this list may not be complete)

Several organizations have released non-committal statements on global warming. But not ONE scientific body of national/international standing currently dissents. If you know of any that do, please edit the wikipedia article with a proper citation:

The very idea of abortion is repugnant to all of us. But for any of us to impose our value system and religious convictions upon others is equally repugnant.

A couple of situations:

>>A 17-year-old drug addicted, HIV positive prositute; On the street from the age of 13, who has been involved with hundreds, possibly thousands of "customers." She arrives at a free clinic, two months pregnant, still HIV positive, with four STD infections.

She has no idea of which man of dozens is responsible for the pregnancy. Without question, if carried to birth, the baby will be severely disabled, probably deformed and HIV positive.

Do you have the right to make a decision here.

>> A 37 year old mother of 15, pregnant again.

As usual, her husband celebrates his impending fatherhood by getting drunk, beating his pregnant wife, getting into his pickup and driving away with his latest girlfriend.

The mother's doctor has already warned her another pregnancy may well kill her ... three pregnancies ago. The last two very nearly killed her. If she dies in childbirth with a 16th baby, who will care for the 13 children still at home? Her drunken husband?

His barfly girlfriend?

His 400 lb. mother and crippled father?

I want to hear you explain your moral conviction to that woman.

After considering just these two, present a logical argument why you or I or any other uninvolved male should decide anything for any woman, other than having a say where our wives ae concerned.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 9:24 PM

What Jhat doesn't tell you is that almost everyone of the entities he listed as "believing" in man made global warming hoax, have their greedy eyes focused on fleecing the American taxpayer. The man made global warming hoax is designed to bring America to it's knees, and ruin us. Unfortunately, the propaganda has gotten so bad, that even patriots have a hard time understanding the truth.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the worlds' extreme leftists found that the American citizen would be an easy touch for their global warming propaganda.

I don't know how many times I need to point this out. If Al Gore, the Apostle of Global Warming, really believed the lies he spews, then he would have to be considered a monster for the way he lives.

It would be the equivalent of the Apostle Paul engaging in human sacrifices.

If you want money, and you are a scientist, you had better be willing to come up with the conclusions that you are being PAID to come up with.

The sad thing is, America's leftist have been so diluted and polluted with the constant man made global warming lie, that they have become puppets for the enemies of America.

Remember, the reason that leftists like jhat constantly use the "paper stack" method of debate is because they have no evidence that their green fantasies are true. All they have in pie in the sky.

Carl - I have to ask for a couple more days. I have been really busy, and I am awaiting some information from some highly credible sources. (at least they are highly credible to me lol) I pray you'll be patient with me.

Side note: Today, while traveling perhaps the most beautiful spot in America, the fantastic and awesome Columbia River Gorge, I saw some real ugliness. No, it wasn't a oil rig, or a coal mine, or even a gas plant. It was hundreds of foul looking worthless windmills, littering this incredible natural treasure. The left wants us to believe that they have only wonderful and beautiful solutions to energy.

The same thing can be said about the area east of LA Metro, were thousands of windmills, (half of which don't work at any given time) ruin the countryside. No wonder the Kennedy's don't want no stinkin' windmills around their house baby.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 11:44 PM

I apologize for the mistakes in spelling and grammar above. I fat fingered the computer, and there it is.

Jhat did the same thing when answering my blog on Creation.

The Paper Stack method, you use piles of info, so that your opponent mistakenly thinks you know what you're talking about. It's an old ploy, but one that still is used apparently.

First jhat tried to say that scientific speak was just too far over our little heads.

Jhat, just answer a simple question that was asked of you anti-God people 21 centuries ago by Marcus Tullius Cicero, and that is:

"...if chance collision of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects like a temple, a house, or a city, that nobody doubts were designed?"

Please take no offense Jhat, but I see you as a guy desperately trying to convince yourself of views and beliefs you deem necessary to succeed in your work or your circle of friends.

And in doing this you step all over yourself. Example, you want to wait for invention in nuclear energy, but, we need move right along in so-called green energy, where the results have not been shown, unless of course, you have the big taxpayer subsidy.

If green energy worked, there would be no need to bribe scientists, nor any need to force green energy upon the American taxpayer. It's a farce, and the sad thing is, you know it's a farce.

The truth is simple, the global warming hoax is a political movement, with one purpose, and that purpose is to destroy the USA.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 12:12 AM

Wow Hank,

I didn't realize you were so prejudiced. Disabled people don't deserve to live? Fat and disabled people are unfit to parent? Why is it that when people try to argue thier case, they always choose the most asinine and extreme examples to support thier opininion but somehow miss all of the common real life situations that the debate should be about?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 10:03 AM

Sam,

The realize I use the "paper stack" method, as you put it. Is to demonstrate a very simple point. If you think global warming is a hoax conceived by liberals to fleece the American taxpayer, you're essentially saying either:

1) YOU know better than every single scientific organization with a published opinion on the matter.

OR

2) Every single one of those organizations is engaged in a massive lie and cover-up, and support the global warming "hoax" in some elaborate scheme to get money/power/whatever.

And the same thing goes for evolution. While there are still a few individual scientists who dispute the general premises of evolution and global warming, they are in the overwhelming minority. (and that is not to say that there are no debates going on WITHIN the theories of evolution and global warming).

As far as Cicero goes, I'm not really sure of the relevance of the quote. The origin of the planet has little to do with the theory of evolution or global warming.

[We have a fairly satisfying models of how our planets and solar system formed (gravity + hydrogen). Models that are constantly being updated to reflect information from new findings as we study extra-solar planets.]

As far as why nature does not build houses/temples. They are complex inorganic constructs with no means for self replication. They have no means to achieve evolution on their own. Organic life is able to reproduce and pass on genetic information to new generations via DNA. This enables natural selection to function, which provides a mechanism for evolution of organic life.

(interestingly, you could potentially view the progressive complexity of structures over time as a form of evolution. The "DNA" in this view would be HUMANS. We carry the "genetic" blueprints of the buildings throughout the "generations" of structures. The structures that work best are "most fit to survive" and are reproduced more often. And any modification that benefits a single structure will likely be passed on to future structures.)

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 11:00 AM

And Sam, I will add that I take no offense at your assertion that I'm trying to convince myself of my views. And that I need them to succeed in my work or circle of friends.

I am not trying to convince myself, but to constantly refine and change my views based on the best available information. I understand how this could be misinterpreted as a need to reassure myself that I'm right. The last thing I want is to have a set of unwavering beliefs that cannot be shaken by even the most concrete evidence or stimulating debate.

And as far as succeeding at work and with my friends, my political ideas have very little to do with those things. Many people where I work are conservatives, and many liberal. It really has little bearing on the work that we do, despite the fact that our work is mostly for the government.

And the same goes for my circle of friends. I have plenty of friends from everywhere on the political spectrum (democrats, republicans, socialists, libertarians, etc.) In fact, I grew up in a fairly rural and typically conservative county. The university I attended had a MUCH more active and visible "Campus Republicans" group than the "Campus Democrats". (at least, that was my impression during the years I attended).

So, no. I do not take offense at your interpretation of my views and beliefs. But it is categorically incorrect.

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 12:10 PM

Hey Transplant,

Stating the reality of situations I've seen and known over the years is not prejudging or prejudice.

The problem --

In the real world of inner cities and some rural slums;

With children driven onto the streets by home situations;

With women forced to bear children enmasse by religious dogma and super-macho husbands;

With men, women and children savaged by drugs and alcohol and associated disease--notably HIV/Aids;

With men faced with a faithless wife, pregnant by some other man, known or unknown:

There are real life situations, where regardless of how repugnant abortion is to all concerned, they have no viable alternatives.

Watch a loving adoptive parent's anguish when they have to return a "crack baby" to an agency, because there is no way that child can be managed except in an institution and any attempt to do so will bankrupt the adoptive family.

Prejudiced against obese people -- Unless it is a one in a million medical condition, I object to anyone choosing obesity to the detriment of themselves, family and responsibilities.

Yes, I have seen a 400 lb. man who chose that obesity, to the point of requiring family care of all his personal needs, bathing, bedpan, feeding -- everything. That one 50-year-old man, was 5'3" and incapable of caring for one child, not even considering eight children. His only physical activity was begatting babies.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 2:32 PM

Hank,

Let me see if I understand you, a bunch of bad things happen either to people or because of people's poor choice in action and the only reasonable decision is to abort a pregnancy?

I'm dismayed by your antiquated ideas that the only way to care for a disabled child is to "manage (them) in an istitution."

It seems to me you are looking at these problems backwards. You seem to advocate an "easy" fix after a problem has occured than any attempt to ameliorate the situation prior to catastrophe. But that's ok "fatties" and "retards" don't need any concern or understanding.

I'm saddened that your experience with "one 50-year-old" has so jaundiced your view that you can see no other viable alternatives. I may be wrong but you seem to have a remarkably negative view of many people, must I ask if the faithless wife, drug addicts, and obese father represent a large share of your personal experience?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 3:25 PM

Hey there Mr. Dufferxyz,

I appreciate your comments. The mighty mouth of the liberals says abortion is not murder? Do you need any further proof that liberalism has eaten away basic common sense from some of these guys? You are right of course, putting health care in control of people who have no respect for life, will just add to the liberals death toll already. The liberals could do like McDonald's used to do, put up a big sign in front of the DNC, saying, over 50 million killed. That death toll will most certainly rise if they ever get control of our health care.

Mr. Hank,

I think in the compromise that Sam offered, he agreed to let you folks have your 400 abortions a year that deal with things that you talked about. If you have your 400 killings because you want to play God, cant we then go ahead and save the remaining 1,499,600 babies each year? Do you just HAVE to kill all those babies because of a few tough pregnancies? Also, Hank, you blathered about how we men really don't have a right to a say regarding abortion. You're wrong. I have a duty to defend life, a responsibility to respect life.

-- Posted by RMontana on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 2:17 AM

Mrs. Smith,

I thought you made wonderful points above, and the response from the mighty intellectual was pathetic and weak. "His Generation", that cracked me up. The arrogance of liberal youth, some educated way beyond their ability. We are just suppose to accept abortion because it's always been there. What a remarkably dumb thing to say. It is a good thing that we don't look at slavery that way, or poverty. I appreciate your comments, and I enjoy the way Mr. Inglaterra displays foolishness when he answers you.

-- Posted by RMontana on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 2:31 AM

Hey Fellers and Gals,

You are operating with the serious misconception that Mike, Iggy, Carl and all the others you label as those unAmerican, subversive LIBERALS and yours truly -- are all in favor, totally wishing to find a pregnant woman to help secure a legal abortion.

I don't know anyone who likes the basic idea of abortion.

The problem is that in a nation with no semblance of Universal Health Care, understaffed and woefully undermanaged Child and Mother Protective Services -- the few options available to women who make the mistake of trusting a male, or a fallable contraceptive system, include abortion.

Often the choices are narrowed drastically, simply because a young, ill-educated, poverty trained girl knows she will never be able to afford proper medical care for herself or children:

She knows that she will be doomed forever to low-paying, unskilled labor while raising a child alone:

She knows the "sperm donator" ain't gonna be found nowhere around -- and if she pursues the issue with him in any one of several poor, rural states with antiquated laws -- all he need do is get two to four of his buddies to stand up before a Justice of the Peace and declare, "Me too, judge, and she only charged two dollars."

Think it can't happen in your America. Within 80 miles of the Gazette office, I've seen more than a few trials involving moral turpitude, and you would be stunned to discover what goes on.

Five young men charged with rape, because one of them shorted the woman for $4.00. So she charged rape.

A mother charged with homicide,claiming self defense against a rapist, to protect her husband, after he killed the midle-aged man caught with their teen-age daughter.

Life for an unwed teen, still in the ninth grade, has no upside. With the baby, she has no home.

Have the baby, give it up for adoption -- fine if the agency has a couple willing to take her baby knowing she was abusing cocaine, meth and prescription drugs.

How many of you will adopt and post a $200,000 performance bond, guaranteeing you will feed, clothe, nurture and love that child -- no matter how much "crack baby" damage there is.

When enough doors close and these trapped women find only one option available -- tell them they cannot take that option legally. Go to the old style filthy shack with a greasy kitchen table and a coat hanger.

Maybe she will live. Maybe not.

If you folks can create a perfect world, then demand the perfect, moral solution to every problem.

Until then, don't demand the right to impose your will upon every other person's choice and decisions.

Hopefully by Dec. 1 or shortly therafter, we will have a start toward Health Care Reform. If the law provides for adequate health insurance coverage for everyone -- many of the poorest pregnant women will have a choice they and you can live with.

If the bill is anything close to what several opponents hope to secure, choices will remain limited.

Most of you are opposed to Health Care Reform, accusing the President and Congressional Democrats with every known sin in your battles.

How many are willing to donate $10,000 annually to aid abortion-bound women in prevention of abortion?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 5:35 PM

Hear that, all you poor, uneducated, no hope for a better life, trashy sub-human beings. HerndonHank has your solution, abortion and sterilization. As you can tell, herndonhank says you are a huge drain on society and you need to be gotten rid of, we'll call is "choice". I call it eugenics.

Back in the 1920's Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame, purposed this idea to be "the Salvation of American Society". One of her associates, a Dr. Harry Laughlin purposed "purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South." I guess today we call them "rednecks"

Going for the all out distortion is simply following the Goebbels approach to public debate.

Tell a big lie, keep repeating it and some people will start believing it.

You are the first to voice "strain", "gotten rid of" or "eugenics."

The INDIVIDUALS faced with decisions on all levels of this no-win issue are just that individuals.

Individuals with the God-Given right and responsibility for making THEIR OWN decisions.

It is the political conservatives who want to mandate legislative "Big Government Control" over personal lives.

You and your buddies delight in referring to Barney Frank -- but don't want to participate in San Francisco's FOLSOM STREET FAIR with you hero, Than Franthithco Thavage.

That's the difference, Barney Frank is out in the open and not concealing anything.

Larry Craig concealed his activities, denied his reality, and consistently attacked those who were and are openly homosexual.

Craig, Senator Ensign and Gov. Sanford all viciously attacked W.J. Clinton for his actions, but insist their actions are O.K.

Craig -- on his own nickel and own time -- no official misconduct -- Just sex in a public toilet -- at least sleazy and tacky.

Ensign -- His neighbor and friend's wife who also is a paid employee, with Ensign's parents being called upon to bail their baby out of hock.

How anyone can classify Ensign as anything above sickening, pathetic and an idiotic fraud, is beyond me?

Sanford -- Charging travel with his Argentine mistress to the state, lying about hiking along the Blue Ridge Trail while shacked up in Argentina. Legally, morally, mentally wrong.

Including Thavage, a bunch of hypocrites.

Somehow, I ain't in the mood to authorize those clowns to regulate my life or the nation' .

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, at 8:30 PM

Undeniable truths:

The star Sol is the greatest influence of temperature on this planet aside from the position of the planet itself in relation to the sun.

Water is the greatest influence of temperature regulation on this planet.

Carbon is never made - it only changes form.

None of the above are able to be controlled by humankind no matter how much money they waste on research, whitewashing roofs, shielding ponds or trading carbon credits.

-- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, at 9:50 PM

First off Hank, just exactly what are the "God given rights"? One simple answer, THERE ARE NONE. We do have rights against tyrannical rulers (government), and our fellow man. But God has never granted us any "rights".

I guess I don't know who "Than Franthithco Thavage" is. We have discussed Rep. Barney Frank political position on the House Banking Committee, and how it led to the great downfall on US banks. However, with your "Than Franthithco Thavage", can we assume with your stereotypical slur against male homosexuals, you are referring to Rep. Franks sexuality? My circle of friends have discussed the sins of lust, and the damage it create on one self, and those near to them.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 9:50 PM

And Mickel,

You are 100% correct!!!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 9:51 PM

Chunky,

You carefully avoid the key point --

Barney Frank has been open and up front about his personal choices.

Several of your heroes have not and are not.

Like abortion, I personally find any and all aspects of homosexuality repugnant. While making no claim or pretense to be any sort of "Bible Thumper" I feel pity for those involved.

Up in Northeast Iowa several years ago, a local man who had moved to San Francisco for several years to avoid embarrassing his parents with his choices, returned with a "business partner only" to open a successful business.

They were asked to appear during a public meeting sponsored by the school trustees and give their viewpoints.

Toward the end of the absolutely packed meeting and discussions, including a lengthy question and answer period, one lady asked, "But why did you choose to be a homosexual."

Living on the west coast, working around every side of the San Francisco Bay area, and in The City proper at times -- Meeting people of every persuasion, religion, ethnic background and economic circumstances was routine.

My barber for a time was Brazilian, a favorite Italian restaurant was operated by a recent Roman immigrant, some of Chinese ancestry had arrived illegally in recent days, others were descended from men who built the Union Pacific.

Another friend's ancestors in 1851 launched California's plum and prune production and introduced several dozen varieties of fini-varietal French, German, Portugese, Spanish and Italian wine grapes.

The most "tilted Gay mentalities" were to be found among those from the Rural South, southwest and mid-western regions.

Where I have problems is with the likes of John Ensign, Larry Craig and South Carolina's philandering governor all attacking Bill Clinton non-stop for more than a decade -- while carrying on their misconduct.

The same goes for the Democrats' John Anderson.

The same goes for those well-known broadcast preachers, who have been entangled in every conceivable mess.

What's the saying about Glass Houses and throwing stones?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 10:51 PM

Hank, why would you place mere men on to of pedestals, I don't. The politicians you listed as my heroes, are not. The people I would list as my heroes walk it like the talk it. That alone would disqualify most politicians.

The evil of homosexuality is out there, and the strong must resist it at all costs. The weak fall into it and it rots their flesh with disease, the guilt of knowing their weakness, and the shame of being afraid to stop.

Where is your proof of "tilted Gay mentalities" existing in the rural south and in the mid-west? Is this something you made up? I have seem your disdain for those you deem as "rednecks".

I too, came from another country, legally, and have lived in other parts of this country.

As for the "Glass Houses and throwing stones" thing, I suggest you live it!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 14, 2009, at 8:26 AM

Sorry Chunky,

By choice, I are living among them thar rednecks, attending fiddlin' contests, molasses making days, barbecues and listenin' to the tall tales.

Best events are where someone has a stone jug of 12-20-year aged three grain, triple-distilled, charcoal filtered sippin' whiskey out of a backwoods still where spring water is fed directly into the site.

Most of those stills today are hidden in limestone caverns. The product is not 'shine, but sippin' whiskey.

Now, the most "tilted Gay mentalities" refers specifically to the tormented souls still trying to find peace within themselves in the midst of the Urban Gay communities. The suicide rate among "southern/southeastern" gays is much higher than any other group.

Suicide among that population is on a par with suicide among young people on many Northern Plains Indian Reservations.

Recognizing that reality, and supporting efforts to relieve the social and economic pressures from those within the most affected populations is not in any way even slight indication of "Gay Bashing" or hating rednecks.

Recognizing facts as facts is not bias or prejudice.

Bias and prejudice are emotional responses to facts.

I recognize that most Neo-Con expressions here are fear based. People who cannot adjust to a rapidly changing world.

My grandparents entered the territories with their oldest children in a covered wagon.

A great-grandson served six years on Nuclear Powered Subs.

Several more grandsons are computer engineers in a wide range of roles.

A granddaughter is a retired teacher, breeding alpacas in the San Juan Islands.

My Republican Grandfather actually "Shot the Sheets" off the Klan in 1907 Indian Territory.

Burned the sheets and the klansmen's boots, set them afoot to walk back to town.

That Klan Klavern disbanded.

Some of you complain that in my dotage, I spend all my time researching the GOP scandals.

Hell man, I observed them.

Ike's truck distributorship from atop a neighbor's Harvestore silo;

"Ev' Dirksen of Pekin, Illinois ad libbing from the Senate floor through the bourbon fumes;

Sen. Wayne Morris and Sen. Clare Booth Luce stopping their floor needling of each other to put a stop to the Dixon-Yates deal.

I've seen small town America move from equipment hauled west in the 1940s and 1850s, to 2009 State-of-the-Art technology, within my lifetime.

Have gone from riding circle on Montana Rangeland to stop stock thefts by starving miners, through Civil Rights demonstrations and physically planting "hippy girls" butts onto airport floors before they could spit on wounded GIs and Marines returning from Nam.

You want to research -- I defy any of you conservative blabbers to research the language used by conservatives attacking Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, Kerry and now Obama.

Guess what -- the same tired accusations, the same arrogant BS, the same nonsense spouted in 1917, in 1931-52, and virtually every election year since.

With introduction of the Internet, the same garbage is being spewed hourly -- and with broadcast ranters, every hour of every day on radio and television.

Personally, I wince at much of Bill Maher's stuff, but John Dailey's humor can be cutting.

What really bugs me about the conservative crowd, is that they ignore John McCain's "Feet of Clay" -- because he often talks the right game.

When campaign finance details are out, candidates from both parties show major problems.

[i.e. -- Check district by district. How many donations are from dealers and employees of mobile homes? Then notice the USDA Rural Development Housing loans are restricted to NEW Homes installed by dealers.

A young couple wanting to sell a four-year old doublewide with wide and deep upgrades, cannot finance buyers through the USDA.